The Glorious Revolution

Christopher Hill and J. Champion both agree that the confessional state was weakened due to the glorious revolution, however it is clear that the former believes this effect to have been far more absolute than the latter does. Champion understands that religious toleration did occur, but not to a point in which it would be accurate to determine England as no longer a confessional state due to the remaining restrictions on dissenters, although he does note that this was a 'compromise', meaning it was some form of progression. Alternatively, C. Hill feels that the concept of a confessional state 'was killed off' as local government was no longer based on the commands of ecclesiastical powers but on the directions of 'secular... authority'. It seems as though the interpretation of Champion is closer to the truth as this historian comments on the situation in a more holistic light, drawing upon many aspects of it.

Christopher Hill states that the Toleration Act of 1689 was the point in which the confessional state was depleted, although he does not go into the nuances of how. He also comments on the fact that sin could not be punished through the courts. Indeed, William himself had begun to excersise his royal authority to influence judges and curb church interference in the lives of dissenters who had not been protected under the Toleration Act. Champion also comments on the effect of the Toleration Act upon the confessional state, but notes that it didn't 'break the connection between religious identity and civil rights'. This is true, Hill has failed to note that failing to swear allegience to anglicanism resulted in the deprivation of opportunities in university and to enter legal and medical professionals. The significance of this is that people were denied their rights to…

The Glorious Revolution

Christopher Hill and J. Champion both agree that the confessional state was weakened due to the glorious revolution, however it is clear that the former believes this effect to have been far more absolute than the latter does. Champion understands that religious toleration did occur, but not to a point in which it would be accurate to determine England as no longer a confessional state due to the remaining restrictions on dissenters, although he does note that this was a 'compromise', meaning it was some form of progression. Alternatively, C. Hill feels that the concept of a confessional state 'was killed off' as local government was no longer based on the commands of ecclesiastical powers but on the directions of 'secular... authority'. It seems as though the interpretation of Champion is closer to the truth as this historian comments on the situation in a more holistic light, drawing upon many aspects of it.

Christopher Hill states that the Toleration Act of 1689 was the point in which the confessional state was depleted, although he does not go into the nuances of how. He also comments on the fact that sin could not be punished through the courts. Indeed, William himself had begun to excersise his royal authority to influence judges and curb church interference in the lives of dissenters who had not been protected under the Toleration Act. Champion also comments on the effect of the Toleration Act upon the confessional state, but notes that it didn't 'break the connection between religious identity and civil rights'. This is true, Hill has failed to note that failing to swear allegience to anglicanism resulted in the deprivation of opportunities in university and to enter legal and medical professionals. The significance of this is that people were denied their rights to…